create_async_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of being asynchronous and explains the polling workflow via report_run_id. It lacks details on report lifecycle or failure modes, but for a tool whose primary behavior is async creation and polling, this is substantial transparency. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes value. There is no redundancy or vague filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description completes the core workflow by telling the agent to poll with get_async_report. With 7 optional parameters all documented in the schema, the description provides enough context for basic usage, though it leaves details like report completion timing to the companion tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond naming the resource, and the schema fully documents semantics. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is justified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates an async insight report for large data queries, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_async_report by explaining it returns a report_run_id to poll with that tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for large data queries') and directs the agent to the next step using get_async_report. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use synchronous insight tools or provide alternatives other than the polling tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.